🚼 From Abortion to Charlie Gard 👼

Charlie Gard, the 11-month-old terminally ill British baby died Friday.

Baby Charlie was at the center of a legal battle that captured the world’s attention. His parents wanted to bring him to the United States for an experimental treatment as the last chance to save his life.

If you’ve been following this heart-breaking story then you know that both the hospital and the British government refused to allow the parents to take this last, only chance to save the life of their baby. That’s right, the decision wasn’t left to the parents of this terribly ill baby, the hospital and the courts decided what should be done.

In a ruling in April, Justice Nicholas Francis of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice said it was “with the heaviest of hearts but with complete conviction for Charlie’s best interests” he decided that the hospital could withdraw treatment, except for palliative care, to let Charlie “die with dignity.”

Evidently it is in this child’s “best interest” to just let him die. Oh, I forgot, die with dignity.

Would the treatment have saved his life? We will never know. The government that fought to keep him from getting treatment delayed long enough the his condition deteriorated and there was then no chance. The parents stopped fighting to bring him here. A chance is all they asked for their child. And a hospital, a court refused them.

“He’d fight to the very end, but we’re not allowed to fight for him anymore,” Gard said in a video statement. “We can’t even take our own son home to die.”

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children is a good place to NOT take your children if they are seriously ill. Because they can decide if you child should live.

Can you imagine the agony of knowing that there is a treatment that might, just might, save the life of your child and having some intrusive government bureaucrats, playing God tell you no? Can you imagine the horror of having the courts back up these disgraceful “medical” professionals. I won’t call them doctors, they don’t deserve that title.

The case was taken all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, which declined to hear the case Tuesday, upholding previous court rulings that it was in Charlie’s best interest to withdraw life support.

All the while I’ve been reading about little Charlie Gard and watching his parents heroic fight to save, perhaps only extend his life I have been wondering if this isn’t to be expected. Once you cross a line that says a child’s life is forfeit to whatever we want to do with it where else was there to go?

When you say a child in the mother’s womb can be destroyed, then have the parts of it’s tiny body sold, where else is there to go?

Third-trimester abortions are legal, thanks to the Roe v. Wade companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, which gave mothers carte blanche to abort their babies for any reason by saying their emotional health is imperiled by the pregnancy.

Charlie, had the treatment succeeded, would more than likely been brain damaged. Is that the new criteria for life? Are medial personnel allowed now to decide who will live or die depending on whether they are, or will be brain-damaged?

In 2013, a 29-year-old kindergarten teacher aborted her daughter at 33 weeks at the late-term abortion business run by LeRoy Carhart in Germantown, Maryland.

The young woman’s doctor had warned that her daughter would be born with a seizure disorder, so she and her husband chose to end their daughter’s life. Tragically, both mother and daughter perished in that abortion and were buried together.

We’ve all had to deal at times with some medial people who seem to think they are God but now it seems the courts will allow them to play God. Your child now belongs to the system. In my opinion that right was given to them by millions of women who decided that the baby they carried inside their body didn’t deserve to live. For whatever reason.

While a recent study reported on by the Lozier Institute concluded that most women choose later-term abortion for the same reasons as those who have first-trimester terminations – financial concerns and parenting challenges among them – those mothers whose babies are tragically deemed “incompatible with life” are likely counseled by doctors wary of being sued for “wrongful life” or “wrongful birth” if they fail to deliver a perfect child.

So rather than get sued, the physician kills the baby. To protect himself from a law suit. There is as much trouble in our legal system as is in our medical ethics.

I’m not as smart as all the experts that find ending or allowing a life to end acceptable. Nor am I able to understand how a woman could end the life of a child growing in her body.

An easternChinese woman desperate to give her husband the son he always wanted, died after she was forced to undergo four abortions in the same year because her husband did not want a girl.

For each of her pregnancies, Yueyue’s husband insisted that she undergo ultrasound scans to find out the baby’s sex even though the practice is illegal in China. Each time, however, he was disappointed that it wasn’t a boy and forced her to terminate the pregnancies until she became bedridden the last time around.

Such things couldn’t happen here of course. Or could they? From what I’ve read abortions are being provided for couples based on the gender of the child the parents desire.

So now it’s all right to abort a baby if it’s not the gender you want.

What about partial birth or dismemberment abortions?

Dismemberment abortion is still happening in this country. It is used in the second trimester. In the last five years, at least four women have died following second-trimester abortions, two of them at Planned Parenthood facilities. It is a brutal procedure for the child, the mother, and the abortionist.

Dr. John Bruchalski, a doctor who is now pro-life but who performed some abortions as a resident had this to say about later-term abortion:

“When you kill another human life up close and personal, it’s viciously brutal. The baby fights back a little bit. When they get real big, they don’t want to be killed.”

Each new step, each new acceptance of this monstrous practice brings us as a nation and a people closer to Charlie Gard.

As you know this is an issue very close to my heart. And with Charlie Gard’s death we see without a doubt the horror of single-payer.

The fact that there isn’t more outrage in this country, in my opinion, is because we are slowly and surely being desensitized to the death of babies with the millions of aborted babies we have already permitted to be killed.

No doubt you are right abt the desensitization, Marge. It is truly abhorrent the way people now take it so lightly that we late term abortion, i.e., infanticide. How, how, how did we get to this place?

That’s just it – one of y cousins had something up today abt wanting Single Payer healthcare. Her mother died from breast cancer that metastasized to her bones even after a double mastectomy and all kinds of treatment. She doesn’t seem to understand that her mother would have gotten nowhere NEAR the level of care she got, or the repeated treatments she received, had this Nation had Single Payer healthcare. It amazes me how people are incapable of putting 2+2 together…

Have you ever seen such deliberate stupidity as the media is showing? They know they are mistrusted and yet they continue to do the things that make the public mistrust them.

I feel they’ve reached a point of no return. They cannot seem to understand that more people every day are turning to other sources to get information and they, with their bias make sure that will continue.

For generations we, the public, has overestimated their intelligence.
The few with brains and integrity, like Attkisson have been marginalized but because of all the new media they cannot be silenced.

Assistant Principal Zach Ruff got his 15 minutes of fame earlier this year when his cursing tirade against two pro-life teen activists was captured on video. Now he may face legal problems as well, thanks to the footage including evidence that Ruff may have broken the law during his power trip.

The IRS seems to be in a constant state of administrative shambles. Former IRS employees fired for falsifying documents, illegally accessing taxpayer information, and a range of other conduct, ethics, and legal issues are being rehired by the same agency that fired them. This rehiring reportedly occurs despite flags and notes on the former-employee’s personnel file.

The report states that of the 2,000 employees hired by the IRS in 2015 and 2016, more than 200 had been previously fired by the agency.

In addition to the aforementioned issues, some of the rehired IRS employees had actually filed false tax returns for themselves.